haven't had time or effort to watch all the extra material for the hobbit (interviews, production vids etc) wondering if there is any word on why mr jackson thought it wise to bring azog into the hobbit? ok it kinda works but its also really stupid, I imagine they'll replace him with Bolg in the desolation of Smaug but it was still ludicrous, especially the weathertop scene!

I don't think that either stupid or ludicrous are really the correct words to use.we all have different ideas and opinions and if you don't like something that's fine and dandy but simply because you don't agree with a certain thing does not make it ludicrous.I was initially surprised at azogs inclusion and thought it felt awkward but on further viewings it doesn't,I accept and understand what they have done.this goes for all movie adaptations as changes are inevitable.did we all really feel that arwen taking frodo to the ford in FOTR felt right??and did we all agree with the elves turning up at helms deep??no,but as time passes and we come to understand what has been done we also come to accept and in some cases,love the changes.I can completely understand where people are coming from with a lot of the complaints but I think in time it will all be viewed a little differently.if we were all capable of making a better film or writing a better screenplay we wouldnt be doing the jobs we are.don't be bitter,embrace it all,you'll feel better for it Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well

Lots of debate on this topic... Anyone who has read the book realizes that Jackson has brought Azog back from the dead. Is it necessary? This is where I and still undecided.

In a way it is. In order to give the film a pace that will excite movie goers (especially those who have not read the book and are not Tolkien fanatics) Azog's presence is necessary to kind of prod the company onwards. Lets face it, how many viewers did FoTR lose because of its slow start? This may be one reason for the decision.

On the other hand, this resurrection may have offended Tolkien fans who were hoping to see a very pure and true to text film.

Like I said, I am still undecided about how to feel with this added element, but ultimately PJ and his crew are experts in their field and what choice to we have but to trust the decisions they make in order for the films to be successful (profitable).

and what say you to the changes in LOTR that weren't even in the films? did you love them even though he didn't stick to the book not even for the extended edition materials? saruman's death, gandalf scared s***less by the witch king, the mouth of sauron, the paths of the dead?

did we all really feel that arwen taking frodo to the ford in FOTR felt right??and did we all agree with the elves turning up at helms deep??no,but as time passes and we come to understand what has been done we also come to accept and in some cases,love the changes.

I've come to ignore the changes so they don't ruin the films altogether. Had PJ just filmed the scenes as the book portrayed, it would have worked just fine and there would have been no complaints. Follow the book!

just as he does in the book, so there is nothing in the films to contradict there being Rangers in the area either. I would have preferred a more subtle Weathertop cameo as it were- just there in the backgound, making it a featured location again seemed like PJ tying to hard (yet again) to tie it to his LotR's films.

As Aragorn says ""Strider" I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. " suggests that there probably was some unpleasant creatures a lot closer than Weathertop to Bree. Although I guess that Aragorn probably didn't mean orcs or goblins - Barrow-wights perhaps?

In saying that, there is clear indications in LOTR books that Weathertop is a regular camping and meeting point for the rangers (stored firewood, first place Aragorn heads to in the hope of finding Gandalf) so it does seem odd that a battalion of heavily armed orcs would be traversing this area unmolested.

I guess they just thought it'd be cool to have Weathertop re-appearing.

except bank holidays, Shrove Tuesday and during the events of TH when we were all away on holiday."

I think your last point is more likely- its another 'nod', tie-in, blatant contrived connection to LotR's- which I still think is fine but would have been better served being subtle and in the background montage travelling shots not made a feature which, if not entirely contradicitng the books, certainly raises some awkward questions to anyone who knows the books.

And doesnt Gandalf tell Frodo in FotR the road east has got a lot worse and more dangerous than it used to be? And if Frodo had just been a Hobbit going to Rivendell without the Ring he wouldn't have had an eventful journey at all- yet Bilbo has to pass through lands apparently roamed by night raiding orcs and wargs at a time when it was supposedly safer.

I think you raise a good point. For me its very simple does the character do something that is entirely at odds with your perceptions:-

In the LOTR Gandalf is (in my view) misreported in his interactions with Denethor and the Witch King whereas Wormtongue murdered Saruman with the same intent though in a different place.

Azog, based on the appendices, is doing exactly what I would expect of him. He has a special hatred for the Dwarves and particularly those of Durins line and by bringing him into the current timeline we see that hatred exercised.

In terms of his importance to the story development by retaining him he is more closely tied to Thorin which enables his character to express real time his loathing and hatred for his grand fathers nemesis.

I love the moon light scene at Weathertop with the Warg it echoes imagery from the Silmarillion as others have pointed out. On this question of bringing evil so far West there are exchanges in the LOTR book where shire folk refer to evil things on their borders it is never identified but the idea that is more than a few ruffians is clearly intended by Tolkien. Looking at it the other way round it is entirely unlikely that three trolls would come down from the moors in complete isolation. I suspect the non book reader would expect the journey to be invested with jeopardy beyond the lighter more comic intervention with the Trolls.

On a more general point one rarely comes across a lover of a book whom isn't in someway disappointed by some element of adaption. These movies are huge and so that concern is magnified. However if we do approach these adaptions in an organisational sense I suspect we will be very disappointed. I am not because I leave the film makers to do their job and I simply react instinctively to the characters and what they do within Tolkiens wonderfully realised world. I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

Why would you ignore the changes??if that works for you then fair enough but I'd much rather embrace them and enjoy the WHOLE movie.the book will always be the book no matter what.the movie is the movie.simple as that.if you cant make your peace with that then that's not my problem.my point was to say that calling something stupid and ludicrous because you don't agree with it,is not a realistic or fair comment. Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well

Yes I do love some of the changes because I know that whatever happens in a movie will never change what's in the book.the book is the book.original,classic,timeless.the movies are a different medium and just because you disagree does not make them ludicrous.Tolkien once said that he hoped in the future people would expand on what he had wrote through the mediums of art and theatre etc.it has been expanded on and the spirit has been retained and kept intact.that's the important thing. Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well

I thought the character was poorly designed (and had iffy cgi), wasn't very well developed, and the change to Tolkien's history was egregious.

And that's a terrible argument, that if we don't don't write screenplays we can't criticize them. I'm not a novelist, so that means i can't have an opinion on a novel? Or if i'm not a chef, i can't think a dish tastes terrible? And if you don't like something, just forgetting that and embracing it will not make you feel better. If it did, we'd all be living in some Twilight Zone episode. "Serenity Now!" doesn't work.

so you've never said a bad word about anything in your life? heres some movies/books/screenplays that are truly shocking do tell me if you have ever said a bad word about them: twilight (any teenage vampire film), harry potter movies (4-8), hannah montana movie (any stupid disney movie, high school musical included) the bratz movie?

Let me guess I cant even say the only way is essex is complete trash no?

You're quite entitled to your opinion,as are we all but as I said before,a difference of opinion does not render one of the opinions 'ludicrous' that's all I was saying.as for my argument being 'terrible' why is that?surely I'm entitled to that opinion just as much as you are to yours?my point being that we can all be armchair critics just as we can be armchair football managers and think we could do a better job,in reality we couldn't.we are all free to say what we like but it doesn't mean our view point is the one and only.that includes me. Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well

Of course I've said derogatory things about all sorts,including some of the stuff you listed there.but that doesn't mean that stuff is definitively 'ludicrous' its just my own personal opinion and im quite happy for people to like whatever they like.welcome to the community by the way.you may want to refrain from using bad language,even if you censor it with stars,or you might find yourself getting a slap on the wrist Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well

i don't think anyone ever said they could do a better job, they were just saying they didn't like the results of what someone did, so you're misrepresenting your reply to the original comment.

And secondly, i'm not saying your opinion is terrible (which it very well could be-- there is such a thing as good and bad opinions and ideas. Just because you take a stance or hold an idea doesn't make it instantly valuable or valid or "good"), i'm saying that your argument is terrible. When someone attacks someone else's opinion because they're not an expert in the field or a master of the craft, that is a lazy argument. That's what you were doing. And stupid and ludicrous were perfectly appropriate words for what the op was saying.

Maybe you're right, and some of the things that bother us will bother us less and less with the passage of time. But maybe not. Maybe these issues will grow, and become major flaws that mar how we see the film, and how it's viewed alongside the other Hobbit films, and the LotR films. Having just seen it again yesterday, some things that bothered me initially bothered me much less (the ott action of Goblin Town, the Into the Fire sequence) while some bothered me quite a bit more (the ludicrous Radagast/orc chase, the company surviving the stone giant fight, pretty much everything having to do with Azog). For me, right now, AUJ, while possessing many fine qualities, falls quite a bit short of the bar set by the LotR trilogy. But i attribute most of this to the growing pains associated with turning 2 films into 3, and have much higher hopes for DoS and TaBA.

Attack someone else's opinion,I said that calling something stupid or ludicrous wasn't a fair or sensible way to view another opinion just because you didn't agree with it.as for people thinking they could do a better job,it seems that is what people imply a lot of the time when making critisisms.not all the time obviously.I can agree with what you say about things bothering you less and less over time.when I saw FOTR first time I was really bothered by a few stuff but as time has gone on it bothers me less,because,as I said the book WILL always be the original and definitive medium.nothing will ever change that.we all have opinions chaps,they just don't always fall I line with others Arrow....black arrow,I have saved you to the last.you have never failed me and always I have recovered you.I had you from my father and he from old.if ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain,go now and speed well